And I simply reminded you that 1080p 60fps is undeniably 4x as demanding as 720p 30fps.

So, if the story on the PS4 is merely that it's twice as powerful as the PS3, as you here state, then it's not going to be doing anything at 1080p 60fps. If it's twice as powerful and twice as well optimized, thus making it effectively 4x as powerful, then sure, but that's not what you posted.

And I simply reminded you that 1080p 60fps is undeniably 4x as demanding as 720p 30fps.

So, if the story on the PS4 is merely that it's twice as powerful as the PS3, as you here state, then it's not going to be doing anything at 1080p 60fps. If it's twice as powerful and twice as well optimized, thus making it effectively 4x as powerful, then sure, but that's not what you posted.

It would not surprise me if they run a mix GPU in this machine. APU for less demanding games. Discrete GPU or APU+GPU for highend graphics. Would certainly help to reduce the heat generated when idle. There are times I thought my sisters PS3 was going to melt down.

yup thats what they get for spending billions on r&d to build better hardware which has yet more potential that they havent took advantage of years after , but instead they are slapping an apu this time which isnt bad but surely not ahead of its time

#1) That's not a demanding game
#2) The Xbox/PS3 render at 720p, not 1080p+ that the PC can do, so posting downsized screenshots is irrelevant because it inherently shows the consoles in their best light and removes the biggest advantage of the PC.

Dude, just drop it. Hardware and software has changed since 2005-2007 when current gen launched. Obviously itll take more system horse power to run at 1080p 60fps, but it won't take 4x the power. Like mailman has said this stuff is not linear, and mailman is correct on virtually all accounts.

He's referring to the OtherOS feature that allowed you to install certain distro(s) of Linux iirc. It was advertised, then after that whole Geohot hacking thing with the PS3 Sony removed it with a firmware update, so some argues you can't remove an advertised feature like that. I agree, but some are more butthurt than others.

#1) That's not a demanding game
#2) The Xbox/PS3 render at 720p, not 1080p+ that the PC can do, so posting downsized screenshots is irrelevant because it inherently shows the consoles in their best light and removes the biggest advantage of the PC.

Current consoles don't really render anything at 1080p. The 360 isn't even capable of true 1080p output and with the PS3, for anything even remotely demanding (99.9% of games), it likewise renders at ~720p and upscales.

Also, I think the # of people who have failed to understand I've been making a picky point about comparing the computing power needed for different resolutions/settings is up to 3 or 4.

*whoooooooooooooooooooosh* go my posts over your head.

There are implications in this discussion for 1080p60 vs 720p30, but my point hasn't been about those implications.

And I stand by my speculation about an APU not being able to do 1080p60. Your speculation that it can is as good as mine that it can't - it's all speculation right now - but I just don't believe their claims.

New Member

I'm probably late, but doing 1080p @60 fps DEFINITELY requires 4x the power that 720p @30 fps needs. BigMack is absolutely right on that account.

A very different thing is that when running low resolutions some other parts (95% of times the CPU or DirectX draw calls...) become the bottleneck and hence you don't see 4x the performance at the lower resolution.

But magic does not happen on computing. If performance moving to higher res is not linear is because graphics cards have power to spare and because of that they do a better work at the higher res. On lower res or with low settings GPU resources stay unnused.

I'm probably late, but doing 1080p @60 fps DEFINITELY requires 4x the power that 720p @30 fps needs. BigMack is absolutely right on that account.

A very different thing is that when running low resolutions some other parts (95% of times the CPU or DirectX draw calls...) become the bottleneck and hence you don't see 4x the performance at the lower resolution.

But magic does not happen on computing. If performance moving to higher res is not linear is because graphics cards have power to spare and because of that they do a better work at the higher res. On lower res or with low settings GPU resources stay unnused.

Exactly. Things not performing exactly linearly doesn't really have any bearing on how much power 1080p60 requires relative to 720p30 - I already explained why back in post #85 - and this basically says the same thing.